20 Anti-Virus Systems get tested

[floppybootstomp]

"A number of the most common anti-virus security systems have had a beady eye passed over their effectiveness and fitness for purpose in an assessment.The study, which was carried out by the Austrian AV Comparatives group, looked at twenty products from the main providers that volunteered to take part."

It's a good read and confirms why a lot of us use Aviri, have a look at the PDF Document

Pretty much confirms what I'd suspected.

My thanks to Alakazam, a member at another forum I sometimes frequent, as I have blatantly lifted his post

 

[crazylegs]

Nice read I see Avast is right up there at the top and its free!

Isn't the Avira Antivir Premium a paid for product as its the premium version?

 

[nivrip]

Well, there I was expecting to read a report from the Vetinary College about ant viruses and it's about computers.


However, that's an interesting list. I use Kaspersky and I note that it's about half way down the list, partly it seems, because of false positives. Not that I've knowingly had any.

Must admit I've not heard of G DATA which tops the list. Also interesting that McAfee and Norton, which regularly get slated on this forum, seem to do fairly well.

Well, Flops, I'm sure there will be lots of resonses to this thread along the lines of " I've used XYZ anti virus for years and never had a problem". But, of course, the user may have just been dead lucky and never have had a problem, antivirus or not.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Ian]

Very interesting, Flops. There seem to be lots of 3 star winers this quarter, which is potentially good news .

Avira always seems to do very well here (and normally MSE) and the free AV engine is the same as the paid one, AFAIK.

Well, there I was expecting to read a report from the Vetinary College about ant viruses and it's about computers.

I've fixed the title now - for those reading this now, it was "Ant-Virus...."

 

[crazylegs]

Never knew Ants went to the Vets when they got poorly anyway..

 

[TriplexDread]

I don't think Norton gets slated for it's AV detection I think its more it's ability to completely and utterly obliterate the use of your computer while it's running in the background.

It uses so many system resources it renders a lot of systems useless untill it's finished

 

[floppybootstomp]

Ant Virus? Oops

Quite so TXD, that be the reason. Nortons is so resource hungry it has been likened to a virus in it's own right.

The biggest surprise, for me, was McAffee doing so well.

 

[muckshifter]

no accounting for the "ID 10 t" errors

... and everyone of them are totally useless against unpatched programs.

A critical vulnerability [still] exists in Adobe Reader 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh. This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2883) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild.

The vulnerability in "the saviour of the universe" err, sorry, I mean Flash, was plugged. Hope you have all updated.

If you are using either of those two programs there is an update schedules within the next week.

Adobe are competing for a place in the Guinness book of record to beat this place for bugs. well, it seems like that.

Who was last months winner in the AV-C contest?

 

[floppybootstomp]

Who was last months winner in the AV-C contest?

Now now, naughty naughty Mr Mucks, oh cynical one

Of all the tests/reports/tables I read there is some consistency, Antivir has done well for years and always with Avast trailing a little way behind in recent months.

Nortons seems to have clawed it's way back up the tables a little but I have absolutely no idea what their bloatware is like now, once bitten twice shy and anyway, I could think of better things to spend 40 quid a year on.

As for McCaffee - shurely shome mishtake oshifer?

 

[Quadophile]

Extremely happy using Avira for almost five years now.